mm 



F'/Sf 







THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 



SPEECH 



HON. SAMUEL A:SMITH, OF TENNESSEE, 



DELIVERED 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 9, 1856. 



The House liaving resumed the consideration 
of the motion to print extra copies of the Annual 
Message of the President of the United States — 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee, said: 

Mr. Speaker, I wish this morning to reply 
briefly to the remarks made yesterday by two 
gentlemen from Ohio, [Messrs. Campbell and 
Sherman,] on the motion to refer and print the 
message of the President of the United States. 

This debate is an extraordinary one; but, as 
the gauntlet has been thrown down by the Re- 
publicans, it must be taken up by the Democrats, 
as they seem to be the challenged party. 

Ob all occasions it is allowable to those defeated 
in any contest, whether personal, physical, or 
political, to make excuses for their defeat; and 
on most occasions those who have taken the lead 
in an unsuccessful contest of any kind are pre- 
pared to furnish their friends with some excuse 
plausible in its character for their defeat; and 
more particularly after it has occurred under 
assurances like those given by the Republican 
party in the late presidential canvass. If nothing 
had been said in reference to the causes of defeat, 
1 should not have considered it my duty to say 
anything upon this occasion. I have always 
found, even in traveling from court to court with 
gentlemen who had favoi"ite horses, that when 
their horses stumbled they would complain of the 
blacksmith who shod them, or would say that the 
horse had been shod too long. Even the Mexi- 
can General Santa Anna furnished an excuse to 
liis people, and made them believe that they 
triumphed in the great battles of Buena Vista and 
Cerro Gordo. Napoleon the 1. furnished an ex- 
cuse for his defeat at Waterloo; but he gave as a 
reason, that his expected reinforcements did not 
arrive on the field of battle in time to take part in 
the conflict which determined the fate of France. 

No auch excuse as that has been furnished by 



the Republican party in the remarks made by 
either of the gentlemen from Ohio on yesterday. 
The Republicans, with their forces all in the field, 
well disciplined and ready for the contest before 
it commenced, have been vanquished, and they 
now attempt to furnish an excuse for their defeat. 
They charge upon the Democratic parly an avowed 
of different sentiments in the different sections of 
the Union. If this had been all that was said 
yesterday, I should not have felt it my duty to 
say a word upon this occasion. The excuse was 
so silly, if I may be allowed the expression, and 
calculated to have such little influence upon the 
public mind, that I should not have replied to it, 
had the remarks of the gentlemen been confined 
to those excuses for defeat to which I have re- 
ferred. 

But, sir, I saw in the speech of the gentleman 
from Ohio yesterday, a different purpose from 
what was disclosed in their words. I saw in the 
speech of the gentleman who last addrei\sed the 
House [Mr. Sherman] an effort at a unio7i be- 
tween that element which had fought the Dem- 
ocratic party at the North, and thai which had 
opposed it at the South, in order to unite all in 
the next presidential contest, which will come off 
in 1860. The gentleman from Ohio has backed 
down from the position taken by the Republican 
party in the last canvass, in this House and in 
the country, in reference to the question of sla- 
very. It was said to me, as I came on to Weish- 
ington, by a distinguished man who occupies a 
seat upon this floor, that there would be an effort 
to unite all the elements of opposition to the 
Democratic party in one body to carry the next 
election, and, to accomplish their object, nom- 
inate a southern man as their candida.te for the 
Presidency. The first step towards the accom- 
plishment of that object was, in my judgment, 
taken on yesterday in this House, ft will not, it 
cannot succeed; but the effort will be made, and 



\ 



e 



'ii! 



.SC.5 



I should not be surprised , from what has occurred 
in the southern States in the late presidential 
canvass, to see that party successful, so far as 
the leading men of tiie Republican party, and of 
those opposed to the Democratic party in the 
South, are concerned. 

But the gentleman from Ohio said that the 
great issue in the last canvass was the restoration 
of the Missouri compromise line, and the policy 
of the present Administration, and that that 
policy had been condemned by more than three 
hundred thousand majority of the popular vote. 
I take issue with the gentleman in that assertion; 
and I am prepared to show that, so far from 
that being true, the policy of President Fierce has 
been app oveil, and that a restoration of the Mis- 
souri compromise line has been condemned by one 
million three hundred and thirty thousand votes. 
The position of the various candida;ts in that 
contest WHS well known. That of Mr. Buchanan 
was in favor of the repeal, and against the res- 
toration, of the Missouri restriction. That of 
Mr. Fillmore was against the restoration of that 
line. Mr. Fillmore took ground against its re- 
peal and also against its restoration. Now, sir, 
the number of votes cast for those two candidates 
over those cast for Fremont is more than all 
those which were given to the Republican candi- 
date at the late presidential election. 

But suppose I am wrong in the idea that the 
votes cast for Fillmore in the northern States 
were opposed to the restoration of the Missouri 
compromise line; yet those who voted for him 
in the southern States openly avowed that they 
were opposed to its restoration. It was so pro- 
claimed by all their speakers on the stump. 
Now, take the votes which Mr. Buchanan re- 
ceived and the votes given to Mr. Fillmore in the 
southern States, and there is a clear majority of 
more than two hundred thousand against the 
rcBtoration of the Missouri compromise line. 
Yet the gentleman from Ohio, in a very extraor- 
dinary manner, asserted that the policy of Pres- 
ident Pierce upon that subject has been con- 
jlemned by a majority of three hundred thousand 
votes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I desire to propound a 
question to the gentleman. 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I yield for an 
interrogatory, but for nothing else. 

Mr. SilERMAN. Does not the gentleman 
know that thousands of persons in the northern 
States who were opposed to the repeal of the 
Missouri compromise voted for Mr. Buchanan? 
Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I do; but they 
were utterly opposed to its restoration. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Does he not know that the 
candidate of the Democratic party in the Lan- 
caeier district of Pennsylvania, in which Mr. 
Buchanan resides, was one of those here who 
TO»^■d rif'iinst the repeal of the Missouri compro- 
mise—who condemned it upon the floor of this 
HuusL-, ;.n(l upon the hustings.' 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I know that Mr. 
Heister, who ran in the Lancaster district, took 
open and bold ground in the late presidential 
campaign against the restoration of the Missouri 
compromise. He said that he had voted against 



the repeal of that compromise; but he unequiv- 
ocally opposed its restoration. 

Mr. SHERMA\. Was that gentleman, who 
thus opposed the restoration of the Missouri 
cnmprgmise, elected in the Wheatland district? 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. He was not; he 
was defeated. Perhaps, if he had voted for the 
repeal, he might have boen elected. At the time 
of the repeal of the Missouri compromise he 
belonged to the Whig party, every northern 
member of which voted against that repeal. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, is this dis- 
cussion in order? 

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks the dis- 
cussion is in order on a motion to print and refer 
the message of the President. 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. It has been 
asserted in the South, in almost every presiden- 
tial canvass and in every State canvass, that the 
Democratic party of the northern States were 
unsound on the question of the constitutional 
rights of the Soutli. 

"We have denied this. We have held that the 
Democratic party North and the Democratic 
party South occupied one and the same ground. 
We took the same position in the late canvass. 
The gentleman furnishes, as he supposes, mate- 
rial to the opposition to the Democratic party in 
the South with which to fight us in future presi- 
dential and State canvasses. But his attempt 
will be fruitless. The people of the South now 
understand the position of all the parties in the 
northern States, and they look to the Democracy 
as the only one national in its principles and just 
in its action to all sections of the Union. 

It was boldly proclaimed yesterday that Mr. 
Buchanan was a minority President, and that 
the administration of President Pierce was con- 
demned by the people. It was alleged that Mr- 
Buchanan" was elected under false pretenses. A 
little investigation would have satisfied the gen- 
tleman from Ohio [Mr. Campbell] that neither 
of these propositions i^.'true in fact. I am pre- 
pared to refute all of them. Mr. Buchanan has 
clear majorities over all others in enough States 
to make' him President without a single electoral 
vote from any State which he only earned by a 
plurality of votes. He has carried by clear ma- 
jorities sixteen States — fourteen southern, and 
tlie States of Pennsylvania and Indiana. Those 
States number one hundred and fifty-two electoral 
votes, being eleven more than the nui.iber re- 
quired to elect a President. So that if the strength 
of Fremont and Fillmore and Gerrit Smith were 
all combined he would have enough votes to elect 
him. 

Let us try this in another way, for these are 
facts which go out to the people. The sixteen 
States which Mr. Buchanan carried by clear ma- 
jorities have a population by the last census of 
ia,3yi,8:34. The entire population of the United 
Slates liy the same census is put down at 2.>,09&,- 
578. Therefore he had a clear majority of the 
people of the Union in ftwor of his election. Yet 
it is said that he is a minority President, and 
that the principle of the restoration of the Mis- 
souri compromise was indorsed by the people. 
Mr. Fremont carried the six New Etigland 



States and Wisconsin and Michigan. Those 
eight States have a population of 3,431,000. The 
States of New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Ohio, 
and Iowa were carried by pluralities. They 
have a popiiiation of over 6,000,000. Mr. Fill- 
more carried Maryland, with a population of 
583,000. So that Mr. Buchanan and the Demo- 
cratic party have been indorsed by a large ma- 
jority of tiie people of the United States. 
The total number of votes polled for Buchanan 
at the recent election may be stated in round 

numbers at 1,800,01)0 

For Fremont 1,275,000 

For Fillmore 850,000 

Total number of votes 3,9-::i5,000 

Buchanan over Fremont 525,000 

Over Fillmore 950,000 

Fremont over Fillmore 425,000 

Buchanan's nlurahty over Fremont is 100,000 
more than Fremont's plurality over Fillmore. 

Fremont lacks about 1,375,000 of a majority of 
the whole. Buchanan lacks about 325,000 of a 
majorityof the v.'hole. 

In all the non-slaveholding Stales taken together, 
Fremont is in a minority of more than 200,000. 
His vote, however, exceeds Buchanan's in said 
States al)out 1.30,000. 

It is not true, therefore, that sectionalism has 
carried the day by a popular majority. The 
people of the country are opposed to sectionalism. 
The people of the North and of the South are in 
favor of the Union, and of preserving the rights 
of every section of the Union. The Democratic 
party was successful in the recent contest, even 
under the adverse . circumstances v.-hich sur- 
rounded it, and elected tlie President by a large 
majority of the electoral colleges. The Sates 
we have carried contain a majority of the popula- 
tion of the United States. Buchanan and Breck- 
inridge have a large majority of the electoral col- 
leges. Why, tlien, is it said that tb.e verdict of 
the pcojvle was against the policy of the Demo- 
cratic party, and that the administration of Pres- 
ident Pierce has been condemned by the people? 
The convention which nominated Mr. Buchanan 
indorsed President Pierce and his administration. 
This we ail know. The very convention which 
nominated him indorsed the Kansas-Nebiasica 
bill, which was the great issue in the presidential 
canvass. 

Mr. BARCLAY. I v.^sh to ask the gentleman 
whether the resolution indorsing the administra- 
tion of President Pierce waa published and cir- 
culated in the Democratic papers of Pennsyl- 
vania? 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I know nothing 
about what was published in the Pennsylvania 
papers. It was contained in the ofiicial proceed- 
ings of the convention, which wre published all 
over the country. But, sir, 1 hope that no Penn- 
sylvanian here will esteem the people of that 
noble Siate so ignorant as not to know what 
occurred in the Cincinnati Convention, when its 
proceedings were public, and published in nearly 
all the journals of the country. 

Mr. WASHBUPcNE, of Illinois. Do I uf'der- 
stand the gentleman to state that this resolution 



inijor.sing the administration of Pierce was pub- 
lished in all the norlhern Democratic papers? 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. Yes, sir, all th'. 
leading ones of whic-li I have any KnowleUge. 

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. As part of 
tlie platform ? 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. As part of the 
proceedings of the Cincinnati Convention. 

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I undertak'- 
to say that it was not published in ma;.y of the 
Illinois Democratic papers. 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. It was published 
in the northern Democratic papers as part of the 
proceedings of the convention. It was published 
in the Boston Post, in the New York Day Book, 
and in the Pennsyl vanian. These are the leading 
papers of the North wliich I saw. 

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. In my sec- 
tion of the country it not only was not published 
in those papers, but they denied that such a res- 
olution was passed. 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I am afraid that 
my tViend's part of the country is a bcnighlc^d 
place, anyhow, and should not be surprised if -so 
good a thing would never find its way into hif 
" beat." Is there a Democratic paper in the 
gentleman's district. 

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. There are 
two or three which profess to be, bat they have 
only a very limited circulation. 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. Do theysupport 
the regular Democratic candidates ? 

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. There wen- 
several Democratic papers in my State which did 
not publish it. I believe the Freeport Bulletin 
was one. I will not bo certain, however. 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennesisee. That evades th.- 
question, and I turn the gentleman over to his 
colleague, [Mr. Marshall.] 

Mrr MARSHALL, of Illinois. With the per- 
mission of the gentleman from Tennessee, I wish 
to ask my colleague a question. I understand 
my colleague to assert that Democratic papers in 
Illinois repudiated the resolution of the Cincinnati 
Convention indorsingtheadministration of Frank- 
lin Pierce, and denied that such a resolution had 
been adopted. This is a grave and sweeping- 
charge, and I wish him to state distinctly what 
i Democratic papers in Illinois he refers to. 
I Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I am not 
! certain. I cannot state with certainty; but my 
i impression is that the Freeport Bulletin denied 
' that such a resolution had been adopted at Cin- 
} cinnati. 

I Mr. MAR.SHALL, of Ilhnois. I wish to be 
j understood distinctly as asserting that no paper 
I in Illinois, uecognized as an organ of the Denio- 
' cratic party, and circulating among the people 
: of that State, ever denied the adoption of such 
'a resolution. On the contrary, the Democracy 
I of Illinois everywhere, witliout evasion or equiv- 
I ocation, sustained the platform and proceeding.'! 
' of the Cincinnati Convention, the principles of 
' the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and the administra- 
i tion of Franklin Pierce. Any assertion to the 
I contrary cannot be sustained l)y the facts. The 
j position of the Democracy of Illinois cannot be 
' mistaken by any one who wishes to understand 



it. They are in favor of withdrawing this question | 
of slavery entirely from the Halls of Congress, j 
and of leaving its adjustment to the people of each I 
State and Territory for themselves, without any 1 
interference wliatever from without. And this 
just principle, I cannot doubt, will be sustained ; 
by a large majority of the people of the northern 
States, when it is fairly and honestly presented, ; 
without misrepresentation or evasion by our op- i 
poncnts. i 

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Will the i 
gentleman state to the House whether he knows ; 
of his own knowledge that the State Register j 
and the Chicago Times, two leading Democratic 
papers in that State, published the resolution 
among the proceedings of the convention.-' [ 

Mr. MARSHALL, of Illinois. Both of them j 
did. And every paper which undertook to pub- [ 
lish the entire proceedings published that among j 
the other resolutions of the convention. 

Mr. ALLEN. For the information of my } 
cfdieague, I can state to him that the Chicago 
Times, the Springfield Register, and the Gluincy 
Herald, three of the leading Democratic papers 
in the northern part of the State, published that : 
reeolution of the Cincinnati Convention. 

Mr. MORRISON. I desire to state that all the , 
Democratic papers in the eighth congressional 
district of Illinois published that resolution; and 
not only the Democratic papers, but the Republi- ■ 
can papers in that district published it also, and 
upon it based their assault upon the Democratic ; 
party, because that party had indorsed the admin- i 
istration of Franklin Pierce. | 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I would ask the ! 
gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. WAsiiBunNc,] if 
he knows one single Democratic paper in his j 
district which did not publish it.-' | 

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I have stated j 
that already. | 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. Is it so to your i 
own know!eds:e.' ' 

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. My im- 
pression is that the Freeport Bulletin is one paper 
which did not publish that resolution. j 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. The resolutions ; 
of the Democratic Convention were public mat- \ 
ters, and every Democratic member of Congress ] 
was entitled, I beheve, to eighty copies, and they 
were distributed among the northern and southern 
States. I hold in my hand one of the resolutions 
of that convention, v/hich I will read. It is as 
follows: j 

"Resolved, That claiming fellowsliip with, and desiring ; 
the cooperation of, all who regard the preservation of the I 
Union under the Constitution as the paramount issue — and ; 
repudiating all sectional panics and platlbrins concerning 
domestic slavery, which seek to enihro:! the State.* and 
incite to treason and armed resistance to law in the Terri- 
tories, and whose avowed purposes, if consummated, must , 
e«d in civil war and disunion— the American Democracy 
recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic 
laws estahlishing the Tenntories of Kansas and Nebraska 
83 embodying the only sound and safe solution of the ! 
« slavery question' upon which the great national idea of 
the people of this whole country can repose in its determ- i 
jned conservatism of the Union — non-interference iw Con- [ 
gross with slavery in State and Territory, or in the JDistrict [ 
of Columlia.'' i 

Upon that platform Mr. Buchanan went before \ 
the country — a platform made in the State from > 



which the gentleman comes who yesterday ad- 
dressed the House, and attempted to show that 
the Democracy of his State were ignorant of the 
principles upon which they voted for the Dem- 
ocratic candidate. 

Mr. GROW. I would ask the gentleman if 
he, and the party with whom he acted in the 
South, understand that resolution to mean that 
previous to the formation of a State constitution 
the people of a Territory could prohibit or permit 
slavery.' 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. It is well known 
that there is a difference of opinion between 
northern and southern gentlemen upon what is 
called the question of" squatter sovereignty." I 
have never regarded it as of any importance. I 
know that a large portion of the peo]ile of the 
North, of all parties, believe that the people, in a 
territorial capacity, can exclude or admit slavery, 
because they believe it is an inherent right, and 
one not conferred by Congress. The people of 
the South disbelieve that, with some exceptions. 
There are some in the South who believe that 
the people have an inherent right to admit or 
exclude slavery in a territorial capacity, and 
there are many in the North who believe that 
the people of a Territory have not that power 
until they form a constitution to ask admission 
as a State into the Union. 

I have said I regard this as a question of no 
practicability. I have held that in a territorial 
capacity they had not the right to exclude slavery. 
Yet the majority of the people in the Territory 
will decide this question, after all. In a Terri- 
tory we must have laws, not to establish, but to 
protect the institution of slavery; and if a major- 
ity of the people of a Territory are opposed to 
the institution, they will refuse to pass laws for 
its protection. 

We have the right to take slaves into the Ter- 
ritory without any law establishing the institu- 
tion. But southern men must be satisfied that 
there will be laws for their protection before they 
will take their property, whether negroes or 
horses, with them into any State or Territory of 
the United States. 

Mr. H. MARSHALL. I would inquire 
whether Mr. Buchanan in the presidential cam- 
paign took the northern or southern construc- 
tion of the question } 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. He took the 
bold and strong ground that the people had the 
right to settle the question for themselves. He 
has always taken ground against what the gen- 
tleman terms " squatter sovereignty." 

Mr. H. MARSHALL. Do I undestand the 
gentleman to say that Mr. Buchanan holds that 
the people of a Icrritory, prior to the formation 
of a State constitution, have the right to exclude 
slavery .' 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. Mr. Buchanan 
has never taken any such ground. I will read 
the ground he has taken. 

Mr. H. MARSHALL. I know what he says 
in his letter of acceptance. As the Democratic 
party went into the canvass with two construc- 
tions of the question, I only wish to know which 
he took, or whether he took both 



Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. Here is the 
ground he assumed. The following resolution is 
a part of the platform adopted by the Democratic [ 
National Convention which nominated Mr. Buch- \ 
anan, and which he most cordially approved: ! 

" Renolvcl, That we recognize the right of the people of i 
all the Territories', includinc; Kansas and Nohra;*ka, actiiii! j 
through the lesally and fairly-expressed will of a majority 
of actual residents, and whenever the number of their 
inhabitants justifies it, to form a constitution, with or with- | 
out domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon j 
terms of perfect equality with tlie otlier States." j 

That is the ground taken by Mr. Buchanan 
and the convention which nominated him. The j 
doctrine that the people of a Territory have the j 
right to form their own institutions in their own 
way is the true and Democratic doctrine. As to 
the institution of slavery, they ought not to jiro- 
hibit or establish it until tiiey form a constitution 
to ask admission as a State into the Union. If ; 
the people of a Territory are opposed to theinsti- j 
tutioa of slavery, they will not pass laws to pro- ' 
lect it, and it will not go there. If, on the con- ' 
trary, they are in favor of it, they will pass laws [ 
for its protection, and it will go there. It will 
either go there or not, according to the popular 
sentiment of the people of the Territory. The 
gentleman from Kentucky himself supported a , 
candidate for the Presidency who maintained the ! 
doctrine of squatter sovereignty. 

Mr. H. MARSHALL. Our candidate did not 
hold that doctrine. He was opposed to it, as 
every man who supported him North and South 
was opposed to it. 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. How many times 
did the gentleman's candidate vote for the prin- 
ciples of the Wilmot proviso? 

Mr. H. MARSHALL. Do you understand 
that to be squatter sovereignty ? 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. The seventh 
section of the platform upon which the gentleman 
fought the battle contains what the gentleman 
himself considered an indorsement of the doctrine 
of squatter sovereignty — the language of the 
Nebraska bill. 
Mr. H. MARSHALL. Not at all. 
Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. Yet the gentle- 
man talks to me of squatter sovereignty, when 
his candidate has voted for the principle of the 
Wilmot proviso every time it came before the 
House when he was a member of this body. He 
denounced the repeal of the Missouri compro- 
mise, which compromise excluded the gentleman 
and myself from going to the Territories of Kan- 
sas and Nebraska unless we left our servants 
behind us. Such are the strange scenes presented 
to us; and they go to show more forcibly the 
truth of what 1 stated to the gentleman from Ohio, 
that there is a movement on foot to unite all the 
elements of opposition to the Democratic party 
in the canvasses which are to come off in the 
future. 

It has been frequently stated that the Dem- 
ocratic party North and the Democratic party 
South take 'different ground in reference to the 
affairs of Kansas and the future of that Territory. 
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sherman] said 
that the Democratic party in the North assumed 



the ground that they were a better free-soil 
party than the Republican party. Now, I have 
a right to speak on this subject. I was in the 
canvass North and South. I spoke in free and 
slave States. I addressed the people of the gen- 
tleman's own State at Cincinnati, together with 
two others, one from Ohio and one from Connec- 
ticut. I spoke in Trenton, New Jersey, with 
gentlemen from Pennsylvania and New York, one 
of them" Prince John, "as he is sometimes called. 
The sentiments uttered by these gentlemen were 
precisely those I entertain and have published to 
my people. The only difference between us was 
this: I live in a slave State, in the midst of the in- 
stitution, and like it; they live in free States, and 
did not like it; yet they had the patriotism to 
stand up to a maintenance of all the guarantees 
of the Constitution for the protection of the insti- 
tution. This, in my judgment, entitles them to 
the more credit. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The gentleman ha?" said 
that he has spoken at the same meeting with 
Prince John Van Buren. Now, I would ask 
him whether he indorses the_ doctrines promul- 
gated by that gentleman during the late campaign, 
and whether they would stand upon the .tame 
stump and rehearse them together? 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I most certainly 
agree in all that Mr. Van Buren said at Trenton 
in reference to the question of slavery. It was 
the only one of his speeches I heard. It was 
published, and gentlemen can see it if they so 
desire. He there boldly avowed his opposition 
to any interference with slavery in the States or 
Territories, and stated that he would support the 
admission of Kansas into the Union as a slave or 
a free State, as the people should determine. 

Mr. SHERMAN. My question is not an- 
swered at all. Do you concur in the opinion.'? 
expressed by John Van Buren in the last cam- 
paign in regard to the events in Kansas and the 
policy of the repeal of the Missouri compromise ? 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I heard nothing 
from him which I did not concur in, though I do 
not remember to have heard him speak of events 
in Kan.sas. 

Mr. SHERMAN. One further question. I 
would ask the gentleman if he is aware that not 
only John Van Buren, but that Wendell Phillips, 
a well-known Abolitionist, voted with the Demo- 
cratic party ? 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I am authorized 
to deny that Wendell Phillips acted with the 
Democratic party. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I have been informed tliat 
he did. 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. Whetherhe did 
or not it is not material. I know that a distin- 
guished gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. 
Orr,] who occupies a seat upon this floor, and 
the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Cobb,] went 
into the State of Maine, and that the two gentle- 
men from Georgia, [Mr. Stephen's and Mr. ' 
Cobb,] went to Pennsylvania, and avowed openly 
and put upon the record then sentiments, which 
were the s:ime as are avowed here upon this floor, 
and the same as those held by the JDemocratic 
candidate for the Presidency. 



mmm 



wmm 



6 



Now, sir, after all this has occurred — after we ' 
have avowed North the same sentiments which ' 
we did at home after we have foug;ht the battle ' 
and gained the viciory, our opponents come here ' 
and endeavor to make out that they would have 
carried the election if it had not been for a fraud ; 
practiced by the Democratic party. I need pur- i 
sue this snlject no further. j 

The gentleman from Ohio also alluded to the 
delay in tVi! progr-ssof business in the House, at ' 
the commencement of the session, on account of j 
the Delegate fiom Tiansas; and I must be allowed 
to make one remark in reference to what he said j 
upon that subject. No one was here contesting i 
the seat of General Whitfield; and the objection j 
made by t'ne gentl.iman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Grow] to his taking the oath of office, was one i 
of the most extraordinary of all the singular pro- j 
ceedings of the so-called Republican party. 

The action of the Democratic party was not 
factious. All we desired was a /air I'oif, and that 
we determined to -have. [ 

He told us that all the difficulties under which ! 
the country had. labored had arisen from the j 
opening of this af;italion by the President, in the 
repeal of the Missouri compromise line. He 
told us further, that that act had brought about 
all the civil war which had existed in Kansas, 
and then, to my astonishment, he thanked the 
President for interposing to put a stop to that \ 
civil war, which h;; said would have been existing | 
yet but for the interposition of the General Gov- | 
ernment. I was astonished at that, because the i 
gentleman, and the party with which he acts, [ 
took the lead in, withholding supplies from the | 
Army, with which alone the President could in- 1 
terfere and put a stop to that civil war. After | 
doing all he could to prevent the Prosidtnt from j 
having the means which enabled him to terminate } 
that fearful strife, he turns round and thanks him ; 
for putting a stop to it. He ought to liave thanked ; 
the people of the country that we have a Presi- I 
dent who, wiien this f louse failed to furnish j 
supplies to the Anny of the United States, had ! 
the courage to call us back and keep us here until [ 
we did furnish him with the means which enabled i 
him to accomplish what has called forth the com- j 
mendation of the gentleman from Ohio. The i 
Democratic party, the Republican party, and; 
the American pai y, now see that the bold stand \ 
then taken by the President did save the country | 
from a civil v/ar which might have led to blood- j 
shed outsid.' of Hie limits of Kansas. But after ; 
he has done that, and is thanked therefor, he is ' 
denounced for whit they consider an innuendo ' 
against that party which attempted to stop the ' 
supplies for the A"-my, ann thus favor their ov.'n 
sectional views against the Government. ! 

Mr. GROW. How did the Republicans j 
attempt to slop the supplies at the last session? i 

Mr. SMiTlI, of Tennessee. P>y attempting! 
to put upon a regular appropriation bill an un- ! 
constitutional pro\ision. ! 

Mr. GROW. They voted all the supplies, | 
but proposed to prevent the President from car- j 
rying on those disturbances in Kansas. I believe 
gentlemen "upon his side of the House voted | 
against the Arm)' appropriation bill. i 



Mr. SPvlITH, of Tennessee. The mode adopted 
to stop the supplies was wor ;e than a straight, 
open, direct vole against anv" supplies to the 
Army of the United States. An amendment was 
put upon the bill which waa in direct conflict 
with one of the provisions of the Rt*pubhcan 
platform under which Colo.iel Fremont was 
nominated. That platform declares, as one of 
its specifications against the President of the 
United States, that he had deprived the people of 
the privilege of bearing arms, while one part of 
the amendment to the Army hill deprived lh« 
people of Kansas from bearing aims. 

But I must congratulate the gentleman upon a 
sentiment which he uttered yesterday — not ihut 
I approve of it. He says that the o>ily purposf 
of the Repubhcan party was to prevent the ex- 
tension of slavery. I would ask the gentleman if 
he believes in the platform upon which Mr. Fre- 
mont was nominated.' 

Mr. SHERMAN. I do. 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I will no>r read 
a part of that platform: 

" Rcso/rei?, That with our republican fathers we bold it 
to be a self evident truth that all aieii aire cndowtiJ vriththe 
inalienable right to life, liberty, am' ths pursuit of happi- 
ness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our 
Federal Government were to secure those rights to all 
persons within its exclusive jurisdici;o:i ; that as our rrpiih 
lican fathers, when they had abolished slavery iA all our 
national territory, ordained that no Tjersoii sliotild be de- 
prived of life, liberty, or property without due proecM of 
law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of tli« 
Constitution against all attempts ro violate it for the pur- 
pose of establishing slavery in tjie lTi:ited Slates by positive 
lecjislation, prohibiting its eiistenet- or extension Uierein. 
7'hat we deny the autliority of Co\)gr<>s>;, of a Tcrritorral 
Legislature, of any individual or a^'>ociatious of individ- 
uals, to give legal assistance to slaviry in any Territory of 
the United States while the present i,'oi!stiuitioa shall be 
maintained." 

Mr. SHERMAN. Does not the gentleman 
know that the context will show the only ground 
taken was that of opposition to the extension of 
slavery into the Territories: 

Mr.'SMlTH, of Tennessee. I will publish the 
whole resolution. I have read enough, however, 
to show the exact position th it lias been taken. 
They will not only resist the exten.sion of slavery 
by positive enactment, but " proh ibit its existenct ' ' 
in the States and Territories. Indeed, I would 
be glad if the Republicans would abandon these 
positions in their platform; but, notwithstanding 
their professions, we find gentlemen of that party 
daily acting with the senior member from Ohio, 
[Mr. GiuDiN'Gs,] who, more ihan once, has ex- 
pressed sympathy for any uprising of the slaves 
against their masters. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. Will the gentleman state 
the times when, and the place;! where, the declii- 
rations were made to which hi- alludes.' 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. Upon . this flov.r 
and in the Philadi Iphia convention. He so ex- 
pressed himself in his speech on the McLeod 
case. I do not state the precise language he used, 
but only the substance of his remarks. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. Stand up to it or back 
out. 

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I do not care to 
get into a controversy with the senior member 
from Ohio. I am too young fir that. I did not 



suppose ho would deny my statement, and I will 
puljlish th« remarks of his to which I refer.* 

f say, Mr. Speaker, as a southern man, that 
if a bill were introduced into Congrosss for the 
establishment of slavery in any Territory, I 
would vote r..','ainsl it. I do not believe that 
(.'ongress has jx^wer either to prohibit or to es- 
tablish it. 1 wish to leave the decision of that 
matter to the people of the Territory; yet those 



•The followins ;ir(; the rcniar.ks of the gentK-iiian from 
Oliio [Mr. GiDDiMi.s] referrod to above. They were made 
ill the House of Ucpreseiitatives, April i'l, 1848, in reply to 
Mr. Bayly, of Viitiiiiia, and will be (bund in the Apn*'"ilix 
to tbe Congresisional Globe, first session of the Thirtieth 
fJongress, vol. 19, pajo SiS. They fully sustain wliat was 
xaid in refejenee to bis sympathy with slave insurrections ; 
and the only ini-^iake made was in the name ot the case in 
which these atrocious sentiments were uttered : 

••The genth^niui, however, says that Abolitionists look 
M the insurrcctiiii of the slaves. Sir, who does not look to 
that inevitable result, uiib'ss the slave States remove the 
iH-avy burdens wl'.ich now rest upon the down-trodden and 
degraded people whom they oppress.' Is there a slave- 
b«lder who can shut his eyes to this sure finale of slavery .' 
And why should we not expect it ? Were we thus oppressed, 
muragcd, and abused, would we not use all the means 
which God and ii;Uure have placed within our power to 
remove such evils.' Would not duty to ourselves, to our 
offspring, to God, and to humanity, demand that we should 
rijie. Willi one accord and hurl our oppressors from us.' Can 
we justify our fathers of the Kevolution in their patriotic 
struggle (br political freedom, and then turn round and 
condemn the slaves of the South lor breaking the chains 
which hold them in physical bondage and in intellectual 
Jcgrad.Vion .' No, sir; no lover of justice, no unbiased 
luind sould blame tliem fur asserting and maintaining their 
ixialieoable rights." 



who refuse to allow the people of the Territory 
to mold their institutions in their own way, talk 
of " free Kansas." Kansas wa.<? enslaved until 
the repeal of the Missouri compromise, which 
compromise deprived the people of the Territory 
of the right to regulate their domestic institutions. 
Then it became free. The right of the people to 
govern themselves is the great element of free- 
dom. Whether Kansas cotnes in as a free or as 
a slave State will make no difference with me in 
my political action. Whenever the people decide 
the question for themselves, whenever they fairly 
express their will upon the su'ijcct, I shall stand 
ready to support that decision, whatever it mav 
be, whether for slavery or againvSt it. This 1 
believe to be the position of the Democratic 
party. 

The late election has settled more important 
questions than any other that has occtured since 
the orgahization of the Government. 

1st. It decides the capacity of the people for 
self-government. 

2d. That when the Union is in danger the 
Democratic party can triumph over all opposition, 
because the great clement of their organization is 
equal justice to all sections of the country. 

The Republican party have not only been de- 
feated in the lute election, but havebe(;n signally 
rebuked by the people. Their excus-s for defeat 
will avail notlung. The people, when the trial 
comes, will always defeat any sedioiial party in 
the United States. 



Printed at the Office of the tJongrwjsional Globe. 



/ 



2S15 -^ONGREs; 



e eJT'ff'IfW 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 898 286 



